Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

For what it's worth, there was a plan in the late '70s or early '80s to tie the 63rd Street Tunnel into a repurposed Lower Montauk Branch, but the Archie Bunkers in that part of Queens killed it. 

 

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed, and your plan does that for the QBL trains, outside of the (F) running through 63rd when the (M) doesn't run there. But I don't know if it's feasible to run the (M) at 14tph because then you have to reduce the (J) / (Z) to 10 tph, which would likely require ending the (Z) and running an all-stop (J) through South Queens and eastern Brooklyn. I'd also prefer to run the (A) and (C) local on CPW and 8th Ave, so that the CPW local stops are not cut off from the 8th Ave local stops (they are the same street, after all).

I remember reading about that plan in the 90s. It sucks that Archie and pals put the kibosh on that, but then again I get the feeling the (MTA) would have had a bee in their bonnets over running subway trains through the Lower Montauk's grade crossings, even though CTA does it on four of its eight 'L' lines.

I believe that was one of the (many) iterations of the Queens Blvd Bypass. There was also a variation that would have only used the Lower Montauk east of Woodhaven, so that would also bring back (nonstop) subway service along the northern part of RBB, to hit a bunch of foamer things with one stone. And as far as I can recall there are no grade crossings east of Woodhaven.

The MTA was fairly good at doing grade separation; they grade separated the entire Babylon Branch in the '70s. This is the sad part of the MTA's current situation; at one point it did do things like double tracking, electrification expansion, and grade separation on a regular basis.

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 6/8/2021 at 4:52 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

And I fully agree, the 63rd St Tunnel should have been at 61st Street, like proposed in an earlier NYCTA plan. But they moved it further north when the old Board of Estimate determined it would be cheaper to build it under 64th St (moved to 63rd under pressure from Rockefeller Institute) The MTA only made it worse when they decided to connect the tunnel into the QB between Queens Plaza and 36th, but I suppose there was no other feasible place to tie it in, and in the 90s, they had no intention of building the Super Express bypass line. 

Maybe in retrospect they should have looked if possible at doing it via 68th Street instead of 63rd?  You likely then could have added a stop at York-1st Avenue (which likely would have been a heavily used station with the hospitals there) and then a stop at 68th/Lex that possibly included a transfer to the (6).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Maybe in retrospect they should have looked if possible at doing it via 68th Street instead of 63rd?  You likely then could have added a stop at York-1st Avenue (which likely would have been a heavily used station with the hospitals there) and then a stop at 68th/Lex that possibly included a transfer to the (6).  

That doesn't really solve what people are trying to aim for here, which is a better Queens connection than 63rd turning off just before it reaches Queens Plaza. Moving it north would make that problem worse.

The IND had, at one point, a proposal all the way north to 79th St, which would've hooked into the line under Broadway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either that or accused of being tone-deaf to the political realities.  Convincing the MTA and local leaders to allow wholesale deinterlining is a pipe dream and politically DOA.  They won't sign off on it; even the proposals that do make sense would result in the community boards, councilmember offices, and borough halls getting bombarded with letters by outer-borough riders pissed off at losing their one-seat rides.  Persuading these folks on whatever benefits they could incur would be a tough sell.  Without the support of management and the local pols, many of these proposals will simply be unable to move forward. The whole Bronx (2)/(5) fiasco from the mid '90s is case in point.

Edited by R10 2952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Either that or accused of being tone-deaf to the political realities.  Convincing the MTA and local leaders to allow wholesale deinterlining is a pipe dream and politically DOA.  They won't sign off on it; even the proposals that do make sense would result in the community boards, councilmember offices, and borough halls getting bombarded with letters by outer-borough riders pissed off at losing their one-seat rides.  Persuading these folks on whatever benefits they could incur would be a tough sell.  Without the support of management and the local pols, many of these proposals will simply be unable to move forward. The whole Bronx (2)/(5) fiasco from the mid '90s is case in point.

This, IMO, speaks more to a need for advocates to get better at speaking the pols' language rather than just quitting. Totally agree that it's a hill (and a half) to climb, but there are some spots of hope in recent history. The way Oddo worked _in coalition_ with MTA to push the SI Exp redesign through, for example, seems a great precedent -- albeit one from a rather marginal political figure in the grand scheme of NYC politics. 

Anyway, my point in posting was more to inform the technical conversations.

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Either that or accused of being tone-deaf to the political realities.  Convincing the MTA and local leaders to allow wholesale deinterlining is a pipe dream and politically DOA.  They won't sign off on it; even the proposals that do make sense would result in the community boards, councilmember offices, and borough halls getting bombarded with letters by outer-borough riders pissed off at losing their one-seat rides.  Persuading these folks on whatever benefits they could incur would be a tough sell.  Without the support of management and the local pols, many of these proposals will simply be unable to move forward. The whole Bronx (2)/(5) fiasco from the mid '90s is case in point.

Sounds like a political battle worth taking, and just like RR503 said, one that would require for more advocates to structure their rhetoric in a way that’ll convince passengers and the pols that deinterlining would be a net benefit. Can’t complain that the subway sucks and then oppose the very ideas that’ll help improve it, even if those improvements are minor changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, randomnewyorker23 said:

What I want to do is send the (C) to Lefferts and from there on out, send all (A) trains to Far Rockaway.

You're not the first person to have proposed/suggested that. However, there are reasons as to why they haven't done that. The first one being that people along the Lefferts Branch want Manhattan express service. It really wouldn't be hard to just transfer, but it would be a hassle and the (A) for a long time has been going to both anyway. The second and most important one is the interlining. The (A) has to deal with 2 lines, the (C) and (D). The (C) has to merge with the (A) between Canal St and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts since there isn't any tracks separate for the (C) to use to run on its own. Then you have the (D) merging between 59 St-Columbus Circle and 145 St. If you were to have the (C) run to Lefferts, the (A) would have yet another merge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

You're not the first person to have proposed/suggested that. However, there are reasons as to why they haven't done that. The first one being that people along the Lefferts Branch want Manhattan express service. It really wouldn't be hard to just transfer, but it would be a hassle and the (A) for a long time has been going to both anyway. The second and most important one is the interlining. The (A) has to deal with 2 lines, the (C) and (D). The (C) has to merge with the (A) between Canal St and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts since there isn't any tracks separate for the (C) to use to run on its own. Then you have the (D) merging between 59 St-Columbus Circle and 145 St. If you were to have the (C) run to Lefferts, the (A) would have yet another merge.

You're right on that one, the subway is made for efficiency, not aesthetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, randomnewyorker23 said:

You're right on that one, the subway is made for efficiency, not aesthetics.

Doesn't act like it is though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, randomnewyorker23 said:

You're right on that one, the subway is made for efficiency, not aesthetics.

Basically what Theli11 said, That's how it should be, but with equipment constantly failing and ridiculous amounts of reverse branching taking place, it sure as hell doesn't act like it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Basically what Theli11 said, That's how it should be, but with equipment constantly failing and ridiculous amounts of reverse branching taking place, it sure as hell doesn't act like it!

At this rate it doesn't act like it was made for either of those things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call this the "Better Subway Service Initiative", it's suppose to improve off-peak subway service while being cost neutral. 

EVENING's:

(A) service to Lefferts Blvd ends at 9 PM, replaced by (C). Every 3rd (A) after 9 PM runs to Rockaway Park.

(B) 145th St - 2nd Av via CPW Local / 6th Av Express every 12 minutes

(C) 168th St - Lefferts Blvd (9 PM-11 PM)

(N) via 4th Av Local (8 PM-9:30 PM) / via Bway-4th Av Local & via Tunnel (9:30 PM-11 PM)

(5) Dyre Av - Bowling Green (9 PM-11 PM)

OVERNIGHT's:

(A) 207th St - Far Rockaway / Rockaway Park (12 AM-5 AM)

(B) No Service

(C) Euclid Av - Lefferts Blvd (12 AM-5 AM)

(S) RW: No service (9 PM-5 AM)

(4) Lexington Av Local (12 AM-5 AM)

(5) Dyre Av - Grand Central via Lexington Av Express (12 AM-5 AM)

(6) Pelham Bay Park - Bowling Green (12 AM-4 AM)

WEEKENDS:

(B) 145th St - 2nd Av via CPW Local

(C) 168th St - Lefferts Blvd (All Weekend)

(M) Metropolitan Av - 96th St/2nd Av

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you build a 2nd Ave subway line. 
 

I like the concept, but I hate how it being build. I would love to see phase 3 and phase 4 rethought. The current plan only help people travel better in eastern Manhattan it does PRACTICALLY NOTHING for riders from the Bronx, Queens and/or Brooklyn. 

 

We cannot denied the fact the current 2nd ave plan It’s filled with wasted potential LEFT and RIGHT.  I mean the biggest flaw is that there no express tracks HECK they isn’t even a third track that could be used for emergencies.  

 

If something goes wrong on a 3-4 track line while it would cause delays as least the train can be rerouted to the local or express tracks Meanwhile if something goes wrong at one station on a 2 track line THE ENTIRE LINE is screwed up. They didn’t even try to make room for the express tracks to be added later. At the very least they could make a plan that don’t require express tracks to be build immediately but allows for them to be added later


 

The 2nd Ave subway is a subway line needed to not just relieve congestion along the east side of Manhattan Lexington Ave subway but also many other subways that service the entire city. My main concern about the 2nd ave proposal is that MTA will try and build the cheapest subway it can which the MTA will regret DEARLY when the population grows.

 

The 2nd ave line won’t add any new captivity to the system, as  matter of fact the current plan for 2nd Av LITERALLY REQUIRES riders to use multiple stairs long corridors and transfer to multiple train routes all because planners are either too scared or don’t want to even bother design their projects to full potential. If the 2nd Ave Subway is not designed properly then it will be one of if not the most expensive mistake the MTA makes. The NYC Subway has a long history of poor planning mistakes which have limited service ever since; 2nd ave subway is the PERFECT  opportunity to redeem ourselves.

 

Here’s how I rate it

Phase 1-2 is ok Phase 3 is Poorly designed Phase 4 is possible unnecessary and might not even need to exist






 

Let’s start off with the Bronx



 

So remember how the 3rd ave line was demolished well while it was a reasonable decision it was a terrible mistake to leave 3rd ave without a replacement because it’s the largest population in the Bronx so trust me 3rd ave IS IN DIRE NEED OF A SUBWAY SYSTEM. So I propose having The T train start at White plains rd gun hill rd transfer to the 2 and 5 trains. Then it will go to Williams bridge Gun hill rd

 

meeting up with the V train. The T train will be the full time local the V train will be the weekday only express. Local service only stops 

 

204 st

 

187th st

 

180st st

 

171st st Claremont pkwy

 

168th st

 

163rd st

 

156th st

 

Local and Express service stops

 

Bedford park blvd

 

Fordham plaza

 

Tremont Park 177th st

 

3 ave 149th st

 

3 ave 138th st

 

They both trains will run to Manhattan via the 3rd ave tunnel

 

Maybe we can build express train on the lower level 

 

Both train meet up with the Q train

 

The V train runs express the T train runs local with the Q train

 

Local service only stops

 

116th st

 

106th st

 

86th st

 

Local and Express service stops

 

125th st

 

96th st

 

72nd st



 

A new train line would be built via northern blvd line it would run up to Whitestone expressway then it will be connected to the 63rd st tunnel this train shall be known as the K train the station it will serve



 

​



 

Whitestone Expressway 112 st



 

104 st



 

Junction blvd



 

85 st



 

74 st



 

Broadway northern blvd



 

Sunnyside 39 st



 

21st st Queensbridge



 

Roosevelt Island



 

​



 

​

 

Now back to Manhattan 

The K train meets up with the T and V trains at 57 st 

K V express and T local

Local service only stops

50th st

St Vartan Park 34rd st

23rd st

8th st St Marks Place 

Houston st

 

Local sand Express service stops

 

57th st 

42nd st Tudor City

14th st

Grand st

Chatham Sq

Then the K V will run to Brooklyn via a new tunnel underneath the Brooklyn bridge 

While the T train will run to lower Manhattan making these two stops 

Seaport 

Hanover Sq

It would also build with connections to the montage st tunnel to potentially be extended to Brooklyn via 4th ave


 

Back to Brooklyn the V would meet up with the F at East Broadway lower Bergen st would be rebuilt for express service the V would run express the F G would run local 



 

At church ave the V train would continue off to kings highway or maybe ave x running express while the F train remains local

culver el would be converted to 4 tracks

finally the K train would run to eastern parkway down Bedford ave in Williamburg Brooklyn 

 

T train run between White Plains Rd Gun Hill Rd Bronx and Hanover Square Manhattan

 3rd Avenue Local 2nd Avenue Local 

V train run between Wiallimsbrigde 210th st Bronx and Kings Highway Brooklyn

3rd Avenue Express 2nd Avenue Express Culver
 

K train run between Whitestone Expressway 112 st Queens and Eastern Parkway Bedford Avenue Brooklyn

Northern Blvd Local 2nd Avenue Express Bedford Avenue local 

 

and there  that my plan I just need to find somewhere to make a map

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I did some digging around and decided to modify the Deinterlining Plan in RPA's Save Our Subways Report. I wrote everything in a document and have a Map to go along with it, but in case one can't access the Doc for whatever reason I'll copy and Paste it here:

Map - https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1il5aXsgUY8TPg77zFPZ1LNjlh-crzOLO&ll=40.76266186932933%2C-73.91666141558674&z=13

 

Document - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1irsKsGbKlJFlZAAdks29lNkNgXAQWJoNN9ef4VsmfSs/edit

Quote

RPA’s Save Our Subway’s Plan; Modified

 

    The Regional Plan Association who has been the “non-profit” organization who has been making plans as to hat should happen in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut Tri-State Area. In June of 2018, they had released a report called “Save Our Subways” Which tackled the issues that plagues the NYC Subway System and their proposals at solving said issues. While many of the right issues were addressed, the solutions to executing said issues were handled in the wrong way. Some issues were ignored completely. However, this analysis is more focused on Priority #5 “Untangle and Simplify Services”. Among Railfans and those with expert knowledge on transit, this term is known as De-Interlining. While they were right about eliminating bottlenecks at Rogers Junction and adding service on lines such as the (A), (F) and (Q) Trains. Their execution was poor. Here’s how I would Modify it.

 

“Double Frequency of Express “A” Train and Service to Inwood.

 

While the Regional Plan Association is right about reconfiguring (A), (C) and (D) Service and eliminating 4 bottlenecks along the CPW and 8th Avenue Lines. Their execution in having (C) Service run exclusively in Brooklyn is poor as that’ll result in adding an unnecessary Transfer for those living along the Fulton Street Line. In order to maintain Balance, The (A) and (C) will run Express Together between Inwood-207th Street and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets and then resume their Normal Routes as the (D) and (E) Trains handle CPW and 8th Avenue Local Respectively. Unfortunately, this will require maintaining the Bottleneck located east of Hoyt-Schemerhorn but solving that bottleneck will not be feasible unless a new tunnel connecting Court Street with either the Broadway or 2nd Avenue Lines is built.  

 

“Double the Frequency of Express “Q” to UES/SAS”

 

Broadway is a Trunk Line that needs to be De-interlined. While the “Canal Flip” (a completely separate proposal) is not the best method of execution for it, I’ve decided to keep it as to not alter their proposal too much. However, as Currently Proposed, a (Q) Train from 96th Street to Bay Ridge-95th Street has no Yard Access. So to solve this issue, a new switch should be built under 41st Street and 4th Avenue as there is space available for one in that area and one that many deinterlining advocates have advocated building. From here on out, the (Q) and (R) will retain their normal routes, but the (D) and (R) will switch roles between being the 4th Avenue Local and Express between DeKalb Avenue and 36th Street-4th Avenue. With Doubled Q Service, the route can be split between Express and Local Variants along the BMT Brighton Line. If for whatever reason it is not Feasible to route more than 24 TPH between City Hall and DeKalb Avenue then the Following Alternatives would take Place. 

 

  1. Keep the (B) . If the (B) Train is Kept under this proposal, then that means that the DeKalb Avenue Bottleneck will remain, but will only affect Brighton Trains (going Southbound) and 6th Avenue Trains (going Northbound)
  2. Send all (N) and (R) Trains to Brighton. (B) and (D) Service will handle 4th Avenue Express between Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center and 36th Street. (Q) Service would be rerouted via West End while remaining Local on 4th Avenue with (B) and (D) Trains going via Sea Beach and Bay Ridge respectively. 
  3. Reroute (M) Trains. With the proposal to reroute (brownM) Service back to Broad Street, said service could be extended to Brighton Beach to cover Express Service for the (Q) if select (Q) Trains have to Terminate at City Hall. However, this alternative would be a net negative and a capacity Loss for Brighton Riders because the (brownM) Line is Limited to 8 Cars per train.
     

“Bring Express Service to the “F” in Brooklyn”

 

Simply Doubling (F) Train Service from Jamaica-179th Street to Coney Island exclusively on the Culver Express (while eliminates 2 Bottlenecks) hurts Culver Commuters more than it helps. The (F) line (along with the Fact that (M) Service is sent Back to Broad Street) will be split into 2 Services called the (F) and (V)(V) Trains will run From Jamaica-179th Street to Church Avenue and will be a completely Local Route. Likewise, (F) Train Service will continue to be Express, but due to terminal Capacity Limitations at Coney Island, some trains will continue to terminate at Kings Highway. In addition, (E) Service will be doubled, but split after Briarwood-Van Wyck due to terminal capacity limitations at Jamaica Center-Parsons Archer. However, due to Terminal Capacity limitations at World Trade Center, some alternative routings for Queens Blvd can be brought to the table. 

  1. (E) Local between World Trade Center and Jamaica-179th Street via Local, (F) Service from Jamaica-179th Street to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue via Queens Blvd and Culver Express and (V) Train Service from Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer and Church Avenue via Queens Blvd Express and Culver Local. This alternative would provide a much more balanced service along Queens Blvd but due to the high ridership heading towards the 53rd Street Tubes, the (E) was chosen as the Express as opposed to the (F).
  2. (E) and (F) Trains run Express via the 53rd Street Tubes, (V) Trains run Local Via the 63rd Street Tubes and (R) Trains remain on Queens Blvd. This alternative keeps a little bit of reverse branching at 36th Street-Northern Blvd and 5th Avenue-53rd Street. (E) and (F) Service would be split evenly due to the demand of 8th Avenue where as (R) and (V) Train would run a 15-10 frequency due to the need for service in Astoria.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm working on a fantasy Jamiaca Line rebuild proposal and wanted some input:

I have two ideas for the line East of Bway Junction:

1. Demolish connection between Crescent St & Cypress Hills, build new elevated structure towards Woodhaven Blvd with new stops at 78 St, 88 St, & Atlantic Av, then turn towards the south along the ROW of the Rockaway Beach Branch to Rockaway Park, making all (A) stops with an additional stop at Ozone Park. 

On the Fulton St Line, after Bway Jct, a portal is constructed and a new 3 track elevated line is created to the stub end of Cypress Hills, with stops at new stations of Van Siclen Av & Norwood Ave. This new connection would be served by a rerouted (W), which would run between 96th St & Jamiaca Center via 6th Av & Fulton St.

2nd Option: Demolish the s-curve as well as Cypress Hills & 75th St, with a rebuilt structure slightly turning towards 85th St, which would significantly increase speeds. A new station would be constructed at 76th St.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that I have left in the other Threads but will also leave here:

My proposals to Upgrade the Jamaica Line in addition to Expanding East New York Yard: 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1len8Pe9UFEkHuFGIbxvp6YA9qGILXHx_&ll=40.6852845575412%2C-73.87820389992514&z=17

 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1x1IKEVRzPmekdO40Xo65fGO22r3L5T-E&ll=40.67771623832114%2C-73.90033038125411&z=17

Basic Rundown of the proposal:

  • Canal Street and Bowery Platforms get combined so that there isn't any redundant Space and to make Installing ADA-Accessibility Easier in both Stations
  • Essex Street Station Gets an Expansion so that Installing ADA is easier
  • Marcy and the Williamsburg Bus Terminal are consolidated into 1 Facility
  • Hewes-Loimer Combined into Union Avenue for a transfer with the (G)
  • Myrtle gets its platforms extended and the Upper Level is rebuilt/resotred for Queens bound (M) Service.
  • Atlantic Station gets Expanded along with ENY Yard (the latter represented in a different map in addition to including alternatives from the Broadway Junction Transportation Study)
  • Alabama Curve gets widened; Alabama and Van Siclen are Consolidated
  • Crescent Street Curves widened; Crescent and Norwood get consolidated into Chestnut Street and 75th and Cypress Hills get consolidated into Eldert Lane
  • 3rd Track East of Broadway Junction and Woodhaven gets an upper Level similar to the old 125th Street Station from the former 3rd Avenue EL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I was wondering why not use the abandoned platforms on the BMT Nassau St line in lower Manhattan for a new subway line running via South 4th St, Utica Avenue, and 4th Avenue local in Brooklyn for the G and L line riders? The J line would terminate at Chambers St since it would be too long to continue onto south Brooklyn and since the 4 track line turns into a 2 track line south of Chambers St. This new line would be the called the Z line and it would run from Floyd Bennet Field or Bowery to Coney Island via West End as a branch of the 4th Avenue local line. As a start, we can reactivate the abandoned platforms as far as Bowery for service coming to and from southeast Brooklyn. If the abandoned platforms are reactivated, then the Z line would avoid merging with the J and M lines like it does today and it will give passengers another option when it comes to commuting on the 4th Avenue subway and lower Manhattan. I doubt any of this will happen, but this my take. What do you propose?

Edited by ActiveCity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

I was wondering why not use the abandoned platforms on the BMT Nassau St line in lower Manhattan for a new subway line running via South 4th St, Utica Avenue, and 4th Avenue local in Brooklyn for the G and L line riders? The J line would terminate at Chambers St since it would be too long to continue onto south Brooklyn and since the 4 track line turns into a 2 track line south of Chambers St. This new line would be the called the Z line and it would run from Floyd Bennet Field or Bowery to Coney Island via West End as a branch of the 4th Avenue local line. As a start, we can reactivate the abandoned platforms as far as Bowery for service coming to and from southeast Brooklyn. If the abandoned platforms are reactivated, then the Z line would avoid merging with the J and M lines like it does today and it will give passengers another option when it comes to commuting on the 4th Avenue subway and lower Manhattan. I doubt any of this will happen, but this my take. What do you propose?

I think there are a couple of potentially good ideas in here, such as the second 4th Ave Local service and the Utica Avenue line. However, I think they would function much better as separate services. Joining them together is creating one long line that would likely get very limited ridership in some parts, specifically along the West End Line. When the (brownM) used to run there, it had very low ridership, especially during its last ~10 years. West End riders overwhelmingly prefer a Midtown-bound service. And while the line is running under capacity (the (D) runs ~10 tph), any new service that doesn’t go to Midtown will carry more air than people. A 4th Avenue Local to/from Bay Ridge would likely get better ridership and can stop much closer than the (R) to some of the areas on Water Street served by the Bay Ridge express buses. That’s something well worth considering.

Also, you mentioned if the abandoned platforms are reactivated, this Z would avoid merging with the (J) and (M). The only way it could do that is to enter Williamsburg in its own separate tunnel or bridge, parallel to the Willy B. I assume that’s how it would go, yes? I honestly think that any Utica-South 4th proposal is much better off going to Midtown, or to Downtown followed by Midtown. But not just Downtown like this Z service would do.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I think there are a couple of potentially good ideas in here, such as the second 4th Ave Local service and the Utica Avenue line. However, I think they would function much better as separate services. Joining them together is creating one long line that would likely get very limited ridership in some parts, specifically along the West End Line. When the (brownM) used to run there, it had very low ridership, especially during its last ~10 years. West End riders overwhelmingly prefer a Midtown-bound service. And while the line is running under capacity (the (D) runs ~10 tph), any new service that doesn’t go to Midtown will carry more air than people. A 4th Avenue Local to/from Bay Ridge would likely get better ridership and can stop much closer than the (R) to some of the areas on Water Street served by the Bay Ridge express buses. That’s something well worth considering.

Also, you mentioned if the abandoned platforms are reactivated, this Z would avoid merging with the (J) and (M). The only way it could do that is to enter Williamsburg in its own separate tunnel or bridge, parallel to the Willy B. I assume that’s how it would go, yes? I honestly think that any Utica-South 4th proposal is much better off going to Midtown, or to Downtown followed by Midtown. But not just Downtown like this Z service would do.

If you take a look at a track map for the BMT Nassau St line, you'll see that the abandoned side is on the right side and it used to continue north as far as Essex St. You can also spot the former Manhattan bridge connection which isn't needed anymore due to the Chrystie St connection. BMT Jamaica line service would better off without the Z and maybe we can implement CBTC on the J and M line to tackle the Myrtle Avenue bottleneck once in for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I think there are a couple of potentially good ideas in here, such as the second 4th Ave Local service and the Utica Avenue line. However, I think they would function much better as separate services. Joining them together is creating one long line that would likely get very limited ridership in some parts, specifically along the West End Line. When the (brownM) used to run there, it had very low ridership, especially during its last ~10 years. West End riders overwhelmingly prefer a Midtown-bound service. And while the line is running under capacity (the (D) runs ~10 tph), any new service that doesn’t go to Midtown will carry more air than people. A 4th Avenue Local to/from Bay Ridge would likely get better ridership and can stop much closer than the (R) to some of the areas on Water Street served by the Bay Ridge express buses. That’s something well worth considering.

Also, you mentioned if the abandoned platforms are reactivated, this Z would avoid merging with the (J) and (M). The only way it could do that is to enter Williamsburg in its own separate tunnel or bridge, parallel to the Willy B. I assume that’s how it would go, yes? I honestly think that any Utica-South 4th proposal is much better off going to Midtown, or to Downtown followed by Midtown. But not just Downtown like this Z service would do.

If you take a look at the track map for the BMT Nassau St line in lower Manhattan, you'll see that the abandoned side is on the right side and it used to follow the left side as far as Essex St. You can also spot the former Manhattan bridge connection which isn't needed anymore due to the Chrystie St connection. The J line would be shifted from the left side to the right side to eliminate the sharp curve for trains heading to and from the Williamsburg Bridge, and the Z line would stay on the left side since its a lot closer to South 4 St and it would allow for Z train service to terminate at Essex St with provisions for future expansion and relay tracks.

Edited by ActiveCity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

If you take a look at the track map for the BMT Nassau St line in lower Manhattan, you'll see that the abandoned side is on the right side and it used to follow the left side as far as Essex St. You can also spot the former Manhattan bridge connection which isn't needed anymore due to the Chrystie St connection. The J line would be shifted from the left side to the right side to eliminate the sharp curve for trains heading to and from the Williamsburg Bridge, and the Z line would stay on the left side since its a lot closer to South 4 St and it would allow for Z train service to terminate at Essex St with provisions for future expansion and relay tracks.

Yes, I do see that. I guess the area where the trolley cars used to loop back to Brooklyn would be rebuilt to handle (J) and (M) trains, while the Z line stops at the existing platforms. Then leave in a provision to go east under the river. Though the 6th Avenue connecting tracks would have to be rebuilt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2021 at 11:24 AM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Something that I have left in the other Threads but will also leave here:

My proposals to Upgrade the Jamaica Line in addition to Expanding East New York Yard: 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1len8Pe9UFEkHuFGIbxvp6YA9qGILXHx_&ll=40.6852845575412%2C-73.87820389992514&z=17

 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1x1IKEVRzPmekdO40Xo65fGO22r3L5T-E&ll=40.67771623832114%2C-73.90033038125411&z=17

Basic Rundown of the proposal:

  • Canal Street and Bowery Platforms get combined so that there isn't any redundant Space and to make Installing ADA-Accessibility Easier in both Stations
  • Essex Street Station Gets an Expansion so that Installing ADA is easier
  • Marcy and the Williamsburg Bus Terminal are consolidated into 1 Facility
  • Hewes-Loimer Combined into Union Avenue for a transfer with the (G)
  • Myrtle gets its platforms extended and the Upper Level is rebuilt/resotred for Queens bound (M) Service.
  • Atlantic Station gets Expanded along with ENY Yard (the latter represented in a different map in addition to including alternatives from the Broadway Junction Transportation Study)
  • Alabama Curve gets widened; Alabama and Van Siclen are Consolidated
  • Crescent Street Curves widened; Crescent and Norwood get consolidated into Chestnut Street and 75th and Cypress Hills get consolidated into Eldert Lane
  • 3rd Track East of Broadway Junction and Woodhaven gets an upper Level similar to the old 125th Street Station from the former 3rd Avenue EL.

Kinda surprised you also don't throw in Bowery/Grand St as one complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.